Country, religion can be

criticized separately
Libby Bottero, Sol Hart and Matthew Peltz, whose letters to the editor were published Oct. 21, have confused a cartoon critique of Bush’s support for Ariel Sharon’s murderous policies and religious fundamentalism with anti-Semitism. Many Jews, and indeed many Israelis, are appalled by Sharon’s blatant statements (and according policies) to incorporate the Occupied Palestinian Territories into Israel, no matter the cost.
Far from hinting at a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, Baggs is commenting on the fact that Bush cannot criticize Israel’s inflammatory military tactics because of their similarity to his own tactics in Afghanistan and Iraq. Opposing the “anti-terrorist” policies of the United States and Israel (especially as these two states kill more people than the terrorists they are fighting) does not amount to anti-Semitism. Under this logic, any political criticism of Bush, who is Christian and leads a mostly Christian country, would be anti-Christian. Criticizing the leader of a country does not equate criticizing the religion of that country, even if that country’s chosen political symbol is the same as its religious symbol.
Furthermore, the notion Peltz promotes — that you should only write about a conflict if you have visited the area and speak the language — is idiotic. With so much of our tax money going to Israel, Americans deserve to have an opinion on its use.
Casually throwing around the word “anti-Semitism” ultimately devalues its meaning for when we use it for someone like Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who really deserves the label.

Jackie Prange

senior

biology and political science